Share this story

The average US consumer is prepared to pay $162 more for a national clean energy standard (NCES) that would require 80 percent clean energy by 2035, according to researchers at Yale and the George Mason University. This equates to a 13 percent increase in the 2009 average annual household energy bill of $1,250. However, for such a bill to pass through Congress, the increase would have to be restricted to about $50, the researchers found.

In a survey of 1010 US citizens, respondents were asked, among other questions, whether they would support or oppose a national clean energy standard that would require 80 percent of the US's electricity to be generated from clean sources by 2035. At random, respondents received one of three "technological treatments" or definitions of clean energy that included renewable energy sources alone, renewable sources plus natural gas, and renewable sources plus nuclear power. (President Obama's 2011 "80 percent by 2035" NCES proposal allowed for natural gas as a clean energy source.)

Respondents were also presented with differing amounts by which the NCES would increase their energy bill—amounts dubbed "bids" by the research team. These bid amounts fell on incremental values between $5 and $155 inclusive, and were presented to respondents at random.

From the data, researchers derived what they call a mean willingness to pay (WTP)—the additional amount that would tip respondents over the line from eagerness to indifference as to whether NCES policy is passed. Researchers allowed for the possibility of negative WTPs (essentially granting that some respondents might be willing to pay more if it meant a NCES was not enacted). Mean WTP was calculated to be $162 accounting for all definitions of clean energy, increasing to $199 where clean energy was defined as renewable only. The mean WTP fell to $142 and $147 for definitions including natural gas and nuclear power respectively–the margin between the two being not statistically different, according to the researchers.

(Note that their statistical analysis indicated that the mean WTP was actually above the maximum value included in their survey. This suggests that, in designing their questions, they probably cut things off too low.)

The education, gender, household size, income and ethnicity of respondents was also surveyed, and a "probability of support" for a national clean energy standard was established based on respondents' socioeconomic data. Across all socioeconomic groups the researchers found that probability of support fell by one percentage point for every $10 increase in bid amount. When the definition of clean energy is broadened to include natural gas or nuclear power, probability of support falls by between seven and eight percent points–a result deemed "not surprising" by the researchers "given the negative publicity regarding shale gas, hydraulic fracturing and the Fukushima nuclear accident."

Delving into the socioeconomics, researchers found that Republicans, Independents, and respondents with no party allegiance were less likely by 25, 13 and 25 percentage points respectively to support a NCES than respondents that identified themselves as Democrats. White respondents were more likely than nonwhites to support a NCES by a margin of ten percentage points. Support for a national standard was lower among older respondents.

The research additionally modeled the likely voting patterns of members of Congress on an "80 percent by 2035" national standard, assuming members would vote in line with the views of the median voter in their state or congressional district, determined using the US Census American Community Survey.

A NCES that increased electricity bills by the $162 mean WTP would not pass the current 112th House and Senate, the researchers concluded, (though it would have likely made it through the bluer 111th). The researchers concluded that a NCES would pass the Senate if additional household cost increases were kept below $59 per year, while House passage would depend upon costs increases being limited to $48 per year. In other words, to pass both chambers household electricity bills would have to rise, on average, by less than 5 percent.

The research brings into focus the contrast between the views of what the researchers call the "average US citizen" represented in the survey, and those of the conceptual median voter who, theoretically at least, constrains the actions of Members of Congress. "The difference between public opinion and political support that we find is consistent with the observation that a majority of US citizens support clean energy and climate-change policies, whereas the necessary majorities in Congress do not," the researchers conclude. Or to put it another way, for a NCES to become law, the resulting increase in energy bills would likely have to be contained.

The research was presented by Joseph E. Aldy, Matthew J. Kotchen and Anthony A. Leiserowitz in Nature Climate Change on Sunday.

the headline states Americans willing to pay more for clean energy, but republicans and unaffiliated voters less inclined. Are you implying that republicans are not Americans?

Nice Bias.

Sensitive much?It's obvious to me that it means "Among these American consumers that we just mentioned in the main title, Republicans and unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

I am not sure why we need to hide taxes in use fees. If you want to tax me to subsidize something say "hey josh, pay this tax, we will use the money to do X", and then I will vote for you or not depending on how I feel about X.

Don't run around sticking hidden taxes in my electric/gas/petrol bill.

As a fiscal conservative (but not Republican) I think investing in green is good if it makes sense. The higher price of CFL and LED bulbs make sense in the long run, the real problem is market penetration due to everyone being poor, so the initial layout is a barrier. Thankfully I can swing CFLs today, but will wait a few more years for LEDs.

Meanwhile on the power generation side, I see us making huge mistakes. We should have a distributed, yet segmented nuclear infrastructure. Wind power does not make economic or environmental sense. It's pushed as a "renewable" and indeed it is, but it's a lousy one. Hydro has environmental problems, basically we're looking at geothermal or nuclear. But thanks to Green Peace, everyone is biased against new nuclear, even if it is one of the new, never-meltdown designs. Nuclear is also cheap too. It's just more unpopular than paying more for expensive energy.

As a fiscal conservative (but not Republican) I think investing in green is good if it makes sense. The higher price of CFL and LED bulbs make sense in the long run, the real problem is market penetration due to everyone being poor, so the initial layout is a barrier. Thankfully I can swing CFLs today, but will wait a few more years for LEDs.

Meanwhile on the power generation side, I see us making huge mistakes. We should have a distributed, yet segmented nuclear infrastructure. Wind power does not make economic or environmental sense. It's pushed as a "renewable" and indeed it is, but it's a lousy one. Hydro has environmental problems, basically we're looking at geothermal or nuclear. But thanks to Green Peace, everyone is biased against new nuclear, even if it is one of the new, never-meltdown designs. Nuclear is also cheap too. It's just more unpopular than paying more for expensive energy.

the headline states Americans willing to pay more for clean energy, but republicans and unaffiliated voters less inclined. Are you implying that republicans are not Americans?

Nice Bias.

Sensitive much?It's obvious to me that it means "Among these American consumers that we just mentioned in the main title, Republicans and unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

Not sensitive, observant. There is a big difference. The left wing of the nation seems to think they own the moral high ground in all thing relating to the environment and they are not afraid to use their occupational majority in the media to press their opinions. If people do not point out obvious political bias it will continue to increase.

I am not sure why we need to hide taxes in use fees. If you want to tax me to subsidize something say "hey josh, pay this tax, we will use the money to do X", and then I will vote for you or not depending on how I feel about X.

X is a variable that often gets canceled out of the equation. You decide to vote for it, and then they blow that money on something else, or on executive boards to study the manner more, staffed by political friends and family at six figure salaries, all the while laughing their asses off and saying, "Thanks for the vote, sucker!"

Something seems flawed here. The first paragraph says the average consumer is willing to pay $162 more per year for clean energy, but then third paragraph says respondents were given a choice between $5 and $155. I find it hard to believe that the average person responded with a choice that wasn't in the survey. I realize that later on in a different part of the survey related to renewable energy only that the prompt increased to $199, which would still indicate that a large portion of Dems would have had to pick $199 to bring the average up (assuming a split of 40% Dems, 40% Repubs, and 20% Indies).

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve anything here, just that something seems lost in translation that makes it hard to follow the conclusions.

As a fiscal conservative (but not Republican) I think investing in green is good if it makes sense. The higher price of CFL and LED bulbs make sense in the long run, the real problem is market penetration due to everyone being poor, so the initial layout is a barrier. Thankfully I can swing CFLs today, but will wait a few more years for LEDs.

Meanwhile on the power generation side, I see us making huge mistakes. We should have a distributed, yet segmented nuclear infrastructure. Wind power does not make economic or environmental sense. It's pushed as a "renewable" and indeed it is, but it's a lousy one. Hydro has environmental problems, basically we're looking at geothermal or nuclear. But thanks to Green Peace, everyone is biased against new nuclear, even if it is one of the new, never-meltdown designs. Nuclear is also cheap too. It's just more unpopular than paying more for expensive energy.

Agree with this 100%.

Thorium Based Nuclear is the way to go.

Indeed, alternatives excluding nuclear aren't going to be able to displace conventional sources of electricity without a serious re-work of the grid. Solar and wind can help, but how to solve the intermittency problem? I like this matrix from Tom Murphy's Do the math site. This gives the best overview of the limitations/drawbacks of various sources of energy that I've yet encountered.

the headline states Americans willing to pay more for clean energy, but republicans and unaffiliated voters less inclined. Are you implying that republicans are not Americans?

Nice Bias.

Sensitive much?It's obvious to me that it means "Among these American consumers that we just mentioned in the main title, Republicans and unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

Not sensitive, observant. There is a big difference. The left wing of the nation seems to think they own the moral high ground in all thing relating to the environment and they are not afraid to use their occupational majority in the media to press their opinions. If people do not point out obvious political bias it will continue to increase.

There's legitimate bias and then there is paranoia. Citing bias in a headline that could only carry the implied meaning if a person had not yet mastered reading comprehension would appear to be the latter.

I already pay more. My utility company offers a program where you pay a premium so that all your energy is from renewables. It ended up adding between $5-10 onto my monthly bill. I'd rather have a volunteer, market-based approach than a top-down regulation, as it'll be more flexible and able to adapt to changing market conditions.

As far as i can tell, the levelized cost of well-sited wind power is competitive with coal and cheaper than nuclear. Yet i keep seeing statements like this. Could anyone tell me what the source on this is?

how can I be having a reading comprehension problem. the headline states:

"American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energyRepublicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

That means that if you are "Republicans, unaffiliated voters" you are not American, because as the author put it the "Americans" are prepared to pay more for clean energy, and the "Republicans, unaffiliated voters" are not.

Something seems flawed here. The first paragraph says the average consumer is willing to pay $162 more per year for clean energy, but then third paragraph says respondents were given a choice between $5 and $155. I find it hard to believe that the average person responded with a choice that wasn't in the survey. I realize that later on in a different part of the survey related to renewable energy only that the prompt increased to $199, which would still indicate that a large portion of Dems would have had to pick $199 to bring the average up (assuming a split of 40% Dems, 40% Repubs, and 20% Indies).

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve anything here, just that something seems lost in translation that makes it hard to follow the conclusions.

Without having read the underlying article, I suspect the difference is that the poll was in terms of change to one's monthly bill, and the reports are in terms of total annual impact.

I think the real question should be why should it cost the consumer extra to begin with? Instead, its just thrown in your face with basically two opposing sides - those that are willing to pay more vs "Republicans and unaffiliated voters"

Is it really a - those that are willing to pay more vs "Republicans and unaffiliated voters" - thing?

The fact is this :

"green power" is always 10 to 15 years away. In 1980, "green power" (wasn't really called "green "back then, was more aligned with the phrase "cheap power") was expected by the mid 1990's. In the mid 1990's suddenly all "cheap power" was "green" but was then linked to the price of oil and oil prices became even more unstable once again and suddenly un-predictable but for some odd reason they were always able to predict the furture price at the pump and then blamed it on the price of oil. But not to worry, "green power" was due in 2015. Now here we are again with yet another promise of "green energy" by 2035 and another "pay more for what we have already paid for" premise. Oh but this this time its "those that are willing to pay more vs "Republicans and unaffiliated voters" so when that green power doesn't arrive they will have someone to blame it on.

how can I be having a reading comprehension problem. the headline states:

"American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energyRepublicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

That means that if you are "Republicans, unaffiliated voters" you are not American, because as the author put it the "Americans" are prepared to pay more for clean energy, and the "Republicans, unaffiliated voters" are not.

The person who wrote this headline should be moderated for trolling.

You've just proven that you have a reading comprehension problem. Obviously, Americans are the group (as opposed to Europeans, Russians, etc.) of which Republicans and unaffiliated voters are a subset of that group. Using your comprehension skills, I suppose this would imply that democrats are not Americans then?:

"American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energy Democrats are more inclined to pay extra for green power"

Indeed, alternatives excluding nuclear aren't going to be able to displace conventional sources of electricity without a serious re-work of the grid. Solar and wind can help, but how to solve the intermittency problem? I like this matrix from Tom Murphy's Do the math site. This gives the best overview of the limitations/drawbacks of various sources of energy that I've yet encountered.

That chart is seriously great. It could use two additional columns though, Cleanliness and Renewability (Abundance somewhat covers this).

Something seems flawed here. The first paragraph says the average consumer is willing to pay $162 more per year for clean energy, but then third paragraph says respondents were given a choice between $5 and $155. I find it hard to believe that the average person responded with a choice that wasn't in the survey. I realize that later on in a different part of the survey related to renewable energy only that the prompt increased to $199, which would still indicate that a large portion of Dems would have had to pick $199 to bring the average up (assuming a split of 40% Dems, 40% Repubs, and 20% Indies).

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve anything here, just that something seems lost in translation that makes it hard to follow the conclusions.

Sorry, it wasn't that explicit in the text, so i've added a parenthetical explaining it. Statistically, the responses to the dollar values included indicated that the questions cut out too early - if they had included values over $155, there seemed to be lots of people who would have chosen them. That pushes the estimated WTP above the values used in the survey.

I already pay more. My utility company offers a program where you pay a premium so that all your energy is from renewables. It ended up adding between $5-10 onto my monthly bill.

That sounds much like a scam to me. First, I am no technician, but it seems quite improbable that in the current system (or any practical system) a company has the option of picking which energy goes were at every moment. Do they disconnect your household from the grid and connect it to their own purely "green" grid? Seems very unlikely.Second, what does count is the mix of "green"/"non-green" in the total energy production, if that mix does not change, by paying more you are perversely subsiding the choice of those who do not go green. It only works if you first scale up the percentage of renewable energy, and then set the price accordingly across the board. That is in fact the main point, going to have sustainable energy, paying more or less (once the price of oil and gas and whatever finite resource is high enough, "green" might also be cheaper) is completely incidental.

I already pay more. My utility company offers a program where you pay a premium so that all your energy is from renewables. It ended up adding between $5-10 onto my monthly bill.

That sounds much like a scam to me. First, I am no technician, but it seems quite improbable that in the current system (or any practical system) a company has the option of picking which energy goes were at every moment. Do they disconnect your household from the grid and connect it to their own purely "green" grid? Seems very unlikely.Second, what does count is the mix of "green"/"non-green" in the total energy production, if that mix does not change, by paying more you are perversely subsiding the choice of those who do not go green. It only works if you first scale up the percentage of renewable energy, and then set the price accordingly across the board. That is in fact the main point, going to have sustainable energy, paying more or less (once the price of oil and gas and whatever finite resource is high enough, "green" might also be cheaper) is completely incidental.

It's based on where your money is going, not who is delivering it. My family has done the same thing here in Ohio. We switched energy companies to one that uses wind farms. We pay them, but our electricity is still "delivered" via the old company and lines/grid.

So are we actually using the energy generated by the wind farm? Doubtful, but our money supports it instead of the coal it previously did.

Given that switching to 80% renewable will raise costs a hell of alot more than 13%, what this survey really meant was there is no legitimate way to get people to support the NCES. This survey was done to provide cover for raising the cost people pay for energy far above what they are willing to do. It gives politicians the magic number to pass a law that hides all the extra costs in other taxes, subsidies, and earmarks. Shame on Ars for covering this bit of agitprop as though it were legitimate.

how can I be having a reading comprehension problem. the headline states:

"American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energyRepublicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

That means that if you are "Republicans, unaffiliated voters" you are not American, because as the author put it the "Americans" are prepared to pay more for clean energy, and the "Republicans, unaffiliated voters" are not.

The person who wrote this headline should be moderated for trolling.

I think the article implies that, to some extent, Republicans and unaffiliated voters are willing to pay more, but not as much more as Democrats. That makes sense to me.

It's based on where your money is going, not who is delivering it. My family has done the same thing here in Ohio. We switched energy companies to one that uses wind farms. We pay them, but our electricity is still "delivered" via the old company and lines/grid.

So are we actually using the energy generated by the wind farm? Doubtful, but our money supports it instead of the coal it previously did.

That's a good answer, but the original poster mentioned that it is only a "program" that his electric company offers, which customers may choose to use or not. So, the money are not going to a green company, nor the energy that he is using is 100% renewable... thus... it looks a lot like a scam to me.

I already pay more. My utility company offers a program where you pay a premium so that all your energy is from renewables. It ended up adding between $5-10 onto my monthly bill. I'd rather have a volunteer, market-based approach than a top-down regulation, as it'll be more flexible and able to adapt to changing market conditions.

Had to think about this for a few minutes; If you are the only one on your street that pays this "energy from renewables all the time" fee but you are on the same electricity power branch the rest of your neighbors are on then your neighbors are getting the same thing you get for less then what you pay?

So, my question is this - is there some new technology that can seperate electrons based upon if they originated from renewables or not and can specifically address them to your home only over the same power line your neighbors who don't pay the fee use also? Did they hook you up to a special "energy from renewables all the time" line or something?

Are you sure the fee you are paying is not just a voluntary fee to help support the transition to a more renewable energy generation system in the state? I know several states have such a program although they may not advertise it, we have it here, where you can pay a little extra to support conversion to renewable energy and the power company never says a word about it.

It's based on where your money is going, not who is delivering it. My family has done the same thing here in Ohio. We switched energy companies to one that uses wind farms. We pay them, but our electricity is still "delivered" via the old company and lines/grid.

So are we actually using the energy generated by the wind farm? Doubtful, but our money supports it instead of the coal it previously did.

That's a good answer, but the original poster mentioned that it is only a "program" that his electric company offers, which customers may choose to use or not. So, the money are not going to a green company, nor the energy that he is using is 100% renewable... thus... it looks a lot like a scam to me.

Fair point. I didn't read the original post thoroughly enough. I agree that it sounds a bit dubious.

I'd rather see a push for people fielding their own renewable energy solutions at their homes to get off the grid. The grid is great, but it's just annoying paying a continual electric bill, and the 'renewable energy' label is getting tossed around like the "green" label in the supermarket; it just means folks are charging you 200% more for the same thing.

It's based on where your money is going, not who is delivering it. My family has done the same thing here in Ohio. We switched energy companies to one that uses wind farms. We pay them, but our electricity is still "delivered" via the old company and lines/grid.

So are we actually using the energy generated by the wind farm? Doubtful, but our money supports it instead of the coal it previously did.

That's a good answer, but the original poster mentioned that it is only a "program" that his electric company offers, which customers may choose to use or not. So, the money are not going to a green company, nor the energy that he is using is 100% renewable... thus... it looks a lot like a scam to me.

Fair point. I didn't read the original post thoroughly enough. I agree that it sounds a bit dubious.

Not really - it's the same thing as what you are doing... but instead of going to a separate company, they are paying their current company to expand it's renewable generating capacity by the amount the house uses (which, over an entire user base would aggregate into something that matters).

I know it's just one city, but in my town there's a voluntary Green Energy program where your electricity is obtained solely from renewable sources. It costs, on average, $7.50 per month more than the base electricity rate.

Last year the participation rate was 2.2% - in a town where local electoral politics overwhelmingly leans Democrat.

I wonder if people are saying one thing to pollsters but doing another in private.

To throw my voice in the wind on the bias of the headline and tagline. The VERY first thing I thought was, "Wait, when did Republicans and Independents become non-American?"

It stated: "American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energyRepublicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

It did not state: "Some American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energyRepublicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power."

nor: "American consumers prepared to pay more for clean energySome Republicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power.

After getting over my first thought and laughing about it (because many people don't recognize their bias, it is a difficult to do when writing a news piece), my assumption became "Some American consumers prepared to pay more..." The way the tagline was written, however, put me in a defensive position before even reading the article based upon my political disposition.

Republicans, unaffiliated voters are less inclined to pay extra for green power.

Ah, I see...So it is really the Democrats who are the fat cats and won't mind paying more for "green" because they have money to burn, and the Republicans who are poor and struggling and don't want to pay more for green because they can't afford to pay more....!

--I don't know who is dumber--the people who write this kind of nonsense, or the people who read it and believe it...

I already pay more. My utility company offers a program where you pay a premium so that all your energy is from renewables. It ended up adding between $5-10 onto my monthly bill.

That sounds much like a scam to me. First, I am no technician, but it seems quite improbable that in the current system (or any practical system) a company has the option of picking which energy goes were at every moment. Do they disconnect your household from the grid and connect it to their own purely "green" grid? Seems very unlikely.Second, what does count is the mix of "green"/"non-green" in the total energy production, if that mix does not change, by paying more you are perversely subsiding the choice of those who do not go green. It only works if you first scale up the percentage of renewable energy, and then set the price accordingly across the board. That is in fact the main point, going to have sustainable energy, paying more or less (once the price of oil and gas and whatever finite resource is high enough, "green" might also be cheaper) is completely incidental.

Obviously, they are not tracking electrons. The extra money goes to adding to their existing renewable generation capacity, and thus altering the balance of "green/non-green" energy they produce. From the utility's documentation:

MG&E wrote:

We can’t control which electrons flow into your home. All electricity that is generated is fed into an electric grid. A convenient analogy is to think of this grid as a pool. Different generators (coal, nuclear and wind) all feed electricity into this pool. When you need electricity, electrons flow out of this pool to your home or business. While the laws of physics make it impossible to separate a green electron from one produced by coal, MGE adds more wind energy to the pool based on the amount participating customers have said they will purchase. Every kilowatt-hour of green power added reduces the amount of fossil fuel-generated power needed.

As with our other operations, MGE’s green power generation, purchases and sales are closely monitored and audited by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to make sure that the extra amount of green power generated equals the amount purchased by our customers.